Sneak attack is not a separate pool of damage. It is simply added on to the damage of the spell.
So yes, metamagic would apply to the sneak attack dice as well, since it's simply a part of the spell's damage, no different than the +1d6 a fireball does from a higher caster level.
Sneak attack applies whenever you make an attack roll.
Whoever is saying it can't be done needs to find rules that say that it can't be done. Good luck finding non-existent rules.
Put another way, yes scorching ray would add sneak attack damage.
I'm not sure thats what Bulmahn intended with the single pool of damage. That doesn't necessarily mean its a single effect. The sneak attack and spell are still separate, they just do damage together.
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.
Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
The sneak attack damage is not a separate pool of damage. It is a part of the spell's damage. Would the spell's damage normally be affected by empower spell? If so, then the sneak attack damage will be as well, as they are one and the same.
I'm not sure thats what Bulmahn intended with the single pool of damage. That doesn't necessarily mean its a single effect. The sneak attack and spell are still separate, they just do damage together.
Jason specifically said "The sneak attack damage is not a special effect that accompanies the attack, it is part of the damage roll." That means it's a "single effect" as you put it. He's not trying to be subtle.
SA does the same type of damage as the spell, and for the purpose of bypassing energy resistance it would count. It is not multiplied or empowered however.
Jason specifically said "The sneak attack damage is not a special effect that accompanies the attack, it is part of the damage roll." That means it's a "single effect" as you put it. He's not trying to be subtle.I'm not sure thats what Bulmahn intended with the single pool of damage. That doesn't necessarily mean its a single effect. The sneak attack and spell are still separate, they just do damage together.
Part of the damage roll, but not part of the spell effect.
damage roll= { [empowered spell X1.5]+[sneak attack]}
Then you would subtract say, the fire resistance 10.
It is not multiplied or empowered however.
I'd love to see where it says / implies that, since it can get a bit ridiculous. Especially with things like crossblooded bloodlines and being a half-orc...
Here is how it works
Weapon damage(which is multiplied on crits)+SA damage=total damage
Spell damage(which is mulitplied on crits and affected by metamagic)+SA=total damage
Jason was trying to point out that SA is not a rider effect that only takes place when damage is dealt. That is important because some rider effects don't take effect if no damage is done.
In that way it is rolled along with the spell or weapon damage, but it is not subject to the same rules as the base damage of the spell or weapon that allows it to take place.
I also would like to see were the CRB says the contrary.It is not multiplied or empowered however.I'd love to see where it says / implies that
Check Sneak Attack under the rogue class feature, and then the above link to Jason's post.
It is not multiplied or empowered however.I'd love to see where it says / implies that, since it can get a bit ridiculous. Especially with things like crossblooded bloodlines and being a half-orc...
SA damage has never been treated like base weapon damage, and rays are weapons.
It is always added on at the end after crits and everything else has been figured out.
If you crit with a scythe the 3d6(Assuming 5th level rogue) is not multiplied, and there is nothing to support it being empowered.
If you were correct then it would also be multiplied and PF/D&D 101 tells you that is not how it works.
Jason was trying to point out that SA is not a rider effect that only takes place when damage is dealt. That is important because some rider effects don't take effect if no damage is done.
And the reason it's not a rider effect is because it's a part of the base damage and not separate, as opposed to how it was in 3.5.
But I recognize that this is soon going to get dogmatic, so rather than set myself up for debating all day tomorrow at work over something so stupid, I'm just going to bow out and say for now that for some reason despite being a part of the damage like anything else in a spell and there being no text saying that metamagic only applies to one part of a spell's damage but not the rest, it won't be affected by the metamagic.
Does SA get duplicated by vital strike?
What do you mean by duplicated?
Jason was trying to point out that SA is not a rider effect that only takes place when damage is dealt. That is important because some rider effects don't take effect if no damage is done.
And the reason it's not a rider effect is because it's a part of the base damage and not separate, as opposed to how it was in 3.5.
But I recognize that this is soon going to get dogmatic, so rather than set myself up for debating all day tomorrow at work over something so stupid, I'm just going to bow out and say for now that for some reason despite being a part of the damage like anything else in a spell and there being no text saying that metamagic only applies to one part of a spell's damage but not the rest, it won't be affected by the metamagic.
Even in 3.5 it was not a rider affect.
Damage from Sneak Attacks
The bonus damage from a sneak attack is expressed as extra dice and it is not multiplied with a successful critical hit, or when an attack otherwise gets a damage multiplier. For example, a rogue charging with a mounted lance can make a sneak attack, but the damage multiplier for the mounted charge doesn't apply to the sneak attack.
A successful sneak attack increases the damage dealt. When you make a sneak attack against a foe with damage reduction, roll the sneak damage and add it to the damage from the hit before applying the effects of damage reduction.
Sneak attack damage is always the same type of damage as the weapon used to make the sneak attack. For example, if you make a sneak attack with a sword (a slashing weapon), all the damage from the sneak attack is slashing damage (also see the Spells as Sneak Attacks section in Part Four).
honestly though a call from one of the designer would be a nice thing to have.
There is no need. The rules say sneak attack can not be multiplied on crits. The rules do say it is the same type of damage as the original source, but at no point is there anything saying it should be multiplied along with the base damage.
That is how it was in 3.5, and there has been no wording to change that.
Just like in my last post all the damage would be slashing damage if it came from a sword that did slashing damage, and if you use scorching ray then it would be fire damage.
Yes but we have word from one of the designers that its part of the damage for the attack here, not tagged on. The attack is a spell in this specific instance. If its part of the damage for the spell and not tagged on well guess what, maximize says "ALL variable effects"honestly though a call from one of the designer would be a nice thing to have.There is no need. The rules say sneak attack can not be multiplied on crits. The rules do say it is the same type of damage as the original source, but at no point is there anything saying it should be multiplied along with the base damage.
That is how it was in 3.5, and there has been no wording to change that.
Just like in my last post all the damage would be slashing damage if it came from a sword that did slashing damage, and if you use scorching ray then it would be fire damage.
It is not tagged on, not in the sense that it is a rider affect. It is additional damage however, and not base damage, and the rules specifically call it out as "extra damage".
...The rogue's attack deals extra damage...
In short sneak attack adds to the base damage when determining total, but it is not a part of the base damage.
I know that this is an old post.. but i've a question: If my pg is a Rogue 3 / Draconic Fire sorcerer 4 (it's an example) and cast a scorching ray against a flat-flooted enemy:
does the bloodline arcana (+1/die of the spell with the fire descriptor)
apply to the SA dices??
Is 4d6+4 + 2d6 (SA) or 6d6+6??